My fiance was terminated from her job

[Pope Flick]

OK, so you still haven't answered the question. Tone or no tone. The point is simply this. It's pretty easy to act high and mighty about how society should accommodate the choice for people to have children when society as a whole volunteers a very small segment of it to bear the brunt of that standard.

 

That's really all I'm saying. If society as a whole doesn't want to "penalize" someone for having a kid, why not let society as a whole pay for it?

 

 

I think you're talking to the wrong person. I've consistently said paid leave is a seperate issue (especially given that she's legally a temp) but that no one should lose their job permanently over a pregnancy. I also said more than once that the EEOC handles this issue to my satisfaction without the addition of your 'koombaya govt organization.' TWICE. That's my answer, no matter how many more hypotheticals you want to toss my way.

 

So I have answered your question, more than once - you just don't like the answer. You keep asking the question as if there's nothing in place, when in fact, there is. Pretty simple, 2%.

[Perchoutofwater]

OK, so you still haven't answered the question. Tone or no tone. The point is simply this. It's pretty easy to act high and mighty about how society should accommodate the choice for people to have children when society as a whole volunteers a very small segment of it to bear the brunt of that standard.

 

That's really all I'm saying. If society as a whole doesn't want to "penalize" someone for having a kid, why not let society as a whole pay for it?

 

detlef, I agree with you on most things, but I think this is where we diverge. I don't want another agency, or more bureaucracy. In a sense society is paying for it whether they know it or not. I just happen to think if they knew about it they would be a little less likely to spend other people's money. You know as well as I do, that if at all possible you are going to try to get back what ever costs you incur as long as the market handle it. Yes it is a little bit harder on those of us who are small business owners whom the government does not classify as such, but you can get most of it back. The large corporations have to deal with this all the time. They to will raise the price of their products to make these special concessions as much as they can. When they can't then they will end up paying smaller dividends to their stock holders, who anyone with a 401K is a stockholder, though most here don't seem to realize that.

 

I have no problem with unpaid leave, but honestly it has nothing to do with me being a good or bad guy, it just makes business sense for me. If one of my administrative assistants gets pregnant, she will be back from leave before I can train the person who temporarily replaces her to be as efficient. So it makes business sense.

 

My problem is making special concessions for someone who places a hardship on themselves. It is one thing if the person is injured on the job, but to me it is quite another when the person decides to do something to affect their job performance, and employers are expected to make concessions for them so that they can work at the same rate of pay for what amounts to less productive work. And my real problem would be making up a new job that I have no need for because of someone else's decision.

 

Sox, I'm not talking about your case, if there is work available that is light duty at the same pay scale, and they fired her then that is just stupid, and sucks.

[detlef]

I think you're talking to the wrong person. I've consistently said paid leave is a seperate issue (especially given that she's legally a temp) but that no one should lose their job permanently over a pregnancy. I also said more than once that the EEOC handles this issue to my satisfaction without the addition of your 'koombaya govt organization.' TWICE. That's my answer, no matter how many more hypotheticals you want to toss my way.

 

So I have answered your question, more than once - you just don't like the answer. You keep asking the question as if there's nothing in place, when in fact, there is. Pretty simple, 2%.

I'm not tossing hypotheticals, rather reminding you that you "handling this to your satisfaction" literally means telling me to pay for your values when it comes to pregnancy. Paid leave aside, reassigning employees or keeping their seat warm while they're gone has a cost. A cost that is born by the employer and employer alone. I have recognized that this is something that a good employer should do for a good employee. That one could argue it's a good business practice. Assuming, of course, that the employee is worth a crap to begin with and somebody that you as an employer has any vested interest at all in keeping.

 

When you consider that having children is not a core need in one's life and something that you can either chose or not chose to do, it seems like a very arbitrary place to start expecting employers to subsidize the personal choices of their employees.

 

I understand that the laws currently in place agree with your stance. However, I don't know why that means any more to this topic than it does to any other that we bandy around here. I mean, this would not be the first time in the history of public policy where society as a whole failed to think something through far enough.

[detlef]

detlef, I agree with you on most things, but I think this is where we diverge. I don't want another agency, or more bureaucracy. In a sense society is paying for it whether they know it or not. I just happen to think if they knew about it they would be a little less likely to spend other people's money. You know as well as I do, that if at all possible you are going to try to get back what ever costs you incur as long as the market handle it. Yes it is a little bit harder on those of us who are small business owners whom the government does not classify as such, but you can get most of it back. The large corporations have to deal with this all the time. They to will raise the price of their products to make these special concessions as much as they can. When they can't then they will end up paying smaller dividends to their stock holders, who anyone with a 401K is a stockholder, though most here don't seem to realize that.

 

I have no problem with unpaid leave, but honestly it has nothing to do with me being a good or bad guy, it just makes business sense for me. If one of my administrative assistants gets pregnant, she will be back from leave before I can train the person who temporarily replaces her to be as efficient. So it makes business sense.

 

My problem is making special concessions for someone who places a hardship on themselves. It is one thing if the person is injured on the job, but to me it is quite another when the person decides to do something to affect their job performance, and employers are expected to make concessions for them so that they can work at the same rate of pay for what amounts to less productive work. And my real problem would be making up a new job that I have no need for because of someone else's decision.

 

Sox, I'm not talking about your case, if there is work available that is light duty at the same pay scale, and they fired her then that is just stupid, and sucks.

I'm no more in favor of government subsidizing this than you are. I'm just saying that if anyone besides the people having the kid have to pay for it, it might as well be everyone, not some small segment like business owners. I mentioned this a few pages back and was merely pointing out that this appears to be another case of society at large saying, "We think this is important so we want somebody (but not us thank you very much) to pay for it."

[Azazello1313]

I'm no more in favor of government subsidizing this than you are. I'm just saying that if anyone besides the people having the kid have to pay for it, it might as well be everyone, not some small segment like business owners.

 

but that is how the nanny-statists operate more often than not. they know they can't get approval for some big new bureaucracy that requires taxpayer money, so instead they just call it "regulation" and put the same burden on the taxpayer, only through the back door (by burdening businesses, which of course are evil anyway).

[detlef]

but that is how the nanny-statists operate more often than not. they know they can't get approval for some big new bureaucracy that requires taxpayer money, so instead they just call it "regulation" and put the same burden on the taxpayer, only through the back door (by burdening businesses, which of course are evil anyway).

Which is why I wish the GOP still existed so I could join it.

[Azazello1313]

Which is why I wish the GOP still existed so I could join it.

 

yer gonna LUV obama's health plan.

[Pope Flick]

I'm not tossing hypotheticals, rather reminding you that you "handling this to your satisfaction" literally means telling me to pay for your values when it comes to pregnancy.

 

 

You ARE tossing hypotheticals when you ask about an additional govt organization. And to the rest of your sentence: YES, that's true.

 

Glad we finally found agreement.

[keggerz]

I'm not tossing hypotheticals, rather reminding you that you "handling this to your satisfaction" literally means telling me to pay for your values when it comes to pregnancy. Paid leave aside, reassigning employees or keeping their seat warm while they're gone has a cost. A cost that is born by the employer and employer alone. I have recognized that this is something that a good employer should do for a good employee. That one could argue it's a good business practice. Assuming, of course, that the employee is worth a crap to begin with and somebody that you as an employer has any vested interest at all in keeping.

 

When you consider that having children is not a core need in one's life and something that you can either chose or not chose to do, it seems like a very arbitrary place to start expecting employers to subsidize the personal choices of their employees.

 

I understand that the laws currently in place agree with your stance. However, I don't know why that means any more to this topic than it does to any other that we bandy around here. I mean, this would not be the first time in the history of public policy where society as a whole failed to think something through far enough.

getting pregnant is not always a choice

[detlef]

getting pregnant is not always a choice

Well, if you want to get technical. And judging by pretty much every response you make to every topic discussed, I'm rather certain you do... With the exception of rape, getting pregnant is very much a choice. Besides the measures one can take to avoid pregnancy when having sex, there's alway not having sex. Pretty much hard to get pregnant without having sex.

[Grits and Shins]

I didn't read all the replies but the jist of them seemed to be that your wife was getting screwed over.

 

I don't know all the particulars of being a "casual" but you did state she has no benefits. If this is equivalent to being a temporary or contract employee that the company has every right to terminate your wife when she can no longer perform her job ... however poopyty it may be.

 

This is not a case of the company terminating her to avoid all the pregnancy benefits because your wife doesn't get any of those. In the world of contract / temporary work your job is NEVER secure and you can be released for almost any reason ... nature of the beast.

[Squeegiebo]

I didn't read all the replies but the jist of them seemed to be that your wife was getting screwed over.

 

I don't know all the particulars of being a "casual" but you did state she has no benefits. If this is equivalent to being a temporary or contract employee that the company has every right to terminate your wife when she can no longer perform her job ... however poopyty it may be.

 

This is not a case of the company terminating her to avoid all the pregnancy benefits because your wife doesn't get any of those. In the world of contract / temporary work your job is NEVER secure and you can be released for almost any reason ... nature of the beast.

 

Clearly you know nothing about Title VII.

[McBoog]

CASUAL (Temporary) EMPLOYMENT

− NO TEST REQUIRED −

 

The Postal Service hires thousands of Casual Temporary Employees from June through December of each year. Postal facilities advertise these openings in local newspapers and now online for all major metropolitan areas. Job announcement opening and closing dates vary by location. For example, this year the Pittsburgh job announcement number 22045 is open from January 1, through May 31, 2008. In California, the dates are from May 26, 2008 through September 26, 2008. Locate and apply for jobs online. You can also ask your local postal clerk if they have a flyer for jobs in your area. These jobs may lead to full time employment. visit our Job Vacancies page for more information. Starting salary ranges form $9.00 to $12.50 an hour.

 

Casual temporary positions are a good way to familiarize yourself with the Postal Service's work environment and they can lead to full time employment. If they like your work, and keep you for at lest 180 days, you can request to take the Postal Exam; even if none are currently being administered in your area. If you pass the test your name will be added to the current hiring register in rank order for full time employment.

 

One word of caution. The casual temporary positions schedules are tedious to say the least. They can and do often work casual temps long hours and sometimes 7 days a week during peak mail periods and you are subject to work any and all shifts. It is hard work but if you impress the supervisor and they keep you for up to 180 days you may be able to take the test and get on the full time register. Some positions at major facilities can last up to two years with a short break between consecutive years.

 

Did she ever complete more than 180 days in a row and has she ever taken, or asked to take the test? If not, why not? If so, did she pass? Was she denied the opportunity? All of this will play into your claim! In your original post, you claim she has done this for two years and that is how you met. This implies two years of non-disrupted time on the job, but that contradicts everything I could find on casual employment with the USPS (see above). Has she ever made an effort to become a full-time employee? Does (or did) she want to be?

 

And this link:

 

Employment requirements

 

She can't do the job. She is not permanent or a "career" employee and is NOT protected by a bunch of the stuff you are all arguing about. I read the post on this topic at the link provided by schiznit on page 7 of this thread, and even the advisors response was similar to my position.

 

It sucks, but she is not protected the way private industry and carreer fed employees are. You sign up for this job knowing what the requirements are. The employer has no obligation to reassign a person from an easy job to her harder one, that would be cause for action as well, favoritism based on her condition. If it was a guy that gets reassigned, then he would have, though flimsy, a better EEO complaint (based on sex) than your wife does.

 

IF she wants to become career, my advise is to let this lay, (I don't think you have a case) and hope that the bosses will support her bid to ge a permanent position when she is ready to return. If you hve burned those bridges, as I said earlier, what are your damages? The rest of her contract? Good luck with that one, especially since the Fed Empoyees Employment Lawyers (google it) I talked with today (none work on a contingency and none would take your case since she is a "casual") all say that IF you went forward, the chances of you getting more than your fees is slim. I tried to hook you up in some way and talked with some folks I know at work, but unless you can get DOCUMENTED evidence that she has been treated differently than other casual employees (depositions cost money), you don't have a good shot at much success.

 

Mind you, this whole thing would be different if she were in career status. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Good luck!

 

BTW

 

It may help us a little better if you posted her job series and job description along with agency practices. All of that stuff is layed out in her contract and initial paperwork.

 

THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE SECTOR ISSUE PEOPLE!!!! BACK OFF OF EACH OTHER PLEASE!!!!!

[Grits and Shins]

Clearly you know nothing about Title VII.

 

The whole point of temporary / contract workers is that they are plug and play and you don't pay their benefits. The legislation you cite applies to employees.

[TheShiznit]

Here is the reply I got from VET, someone who is familiar with the postal inner workings:

 

Vet 102

07-15-2008 02:30 AM ET (US)

 

Also get a lawyer

 

Edit

Delete

Vet 101

07-15-2008 02:30 AM ET (US)

 

Don have her file an immediate FMLA and file it with the agency. Now the burden of proof is on management when in fact she was hired under the rehab act of 73.

[AtomicCEO]

The whole point of temporary / contract workers is that they are plug and play and you don't pay their benefits. The legislation you cite applies to employees.

 

Clearly you know nothing about Title VII.

[Grits and Shins]

Clearly you know nothing about Title VII.

 

So you are arguing that temporary and contract workers have all the same rights as employees based on Title VII of the constitution?

 

(f) The term ``employee'' means an individual employed by an employer,

except that the term ``employee'' shall not include any person elected to

public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the

qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on

such officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level

or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional

or legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the preceding

sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of

a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision. With

respect to employment in a foreign country, such term includes an

individual who is a citizen of the United States.

 

If you believe that statement above obligates employers to give temporary and contract workers all the same rights and priviledges as hired employees then temporary and contract workers should be suiing nationwide for health benefits, 401K and all the other perks that traditionally come with being an employee.

[Double Agent]

I haven't had a chance to review Title VII yet...but I did notice that if you look carefully at the word Title, a dirty word can be found.

 

This may or may not help.

[Azazello1313]

So you are arguing that temporary and contract workers have all the same rights as employees based on Title VII of the constitution?

 

[Grits and Shins]

 

I'm distracted these days ... working many hours.

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

 

Feel better now.

[loyalboyd]

If I was one of these could I charge my wife for the sex?

 

I'm sorry but I guess you haven't figure out she charges you by the minute. You just don't see it in the form of cash given immediately after. She has you to pay in advance a lot as well.

[AtomicCEO]

So you are arguing that temporary and contract workers have all the same rights as employees based on Title VII of the constitution?

 

(f) The term ``employee'' means an individual employed by an employer,

except that the term ``employee'' shall not include any person elected to

public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the

qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on

such officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level

or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional

or legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the preceding

sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of

a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision. With

respect to employment in a foreign country, such term includes an

individual who is a citizen of the United States.

 

If you believe that statement above obligates employers to give temporary and contract workers all the same rights and priviledges as hired employees then temporary and contract workers should be suiing nationwide for health benefits, 401K and all the other perks that traditionally come with being an employee.

 

Show me where your quote excludes temporary workers. Just bold it.

[McBoog]

...If you believe that statement above obligates employers to give temporary and contract workers all the same rights and priviledges as hired employees then temporary and contract workers should be suiing nationwide for health benefits, 401K and all the other perks that traditionally come with being an employee.

 

Clearly. Grits gets it. I'll leave it at that. I know you ignor my posts ACEO, but go back and try to understand at least the bolded part in my post on this page. They are not my sources OR cherry picked info. It all comes from Fed rules and regs and their own web sites. I am trained in this stuff for my agency and I don't see much here to act on. I wish there was because I am employee freindly in these matters. I may work for the system, but it doesn't mean I trust it!

 

Independent of the fact I think what has happened is wrong on its face, it is pretty clear that Sox and spouse have a major uphill battle!

[AtomicCEO]

I know you ignor my posts ACEO, but go back and try to understand at least the bolded part in my post on this page.

 

The bolded section does not in any way indicate that a casual employee is not an employee.

 

Bold some more.

[muck]

One more reason for me to only hire dudes and to never hire more than a dozen or so in total...sheesh.

 

Sorry for you and your fiance, Sox.